[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58804-58820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21561]
[[Page 58804]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
RIN 3150-AH24
Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002
and 2003 Addenda of Division 1 of Section III of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV
Code); the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Division 1
rules of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code; and the 2001 Edition and the
2002 and 2003 Addenda of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of
Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) to provide updated rules for
constructing and inspecting components and testing pumps and valves in
light-water cooled nuclear power plants. This final rule incorporates
by reference the latest edition and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM
Codes that have been approved for use by the NRC subject to certain
limitations and modifications. The NRC is also withdrawing its approval
of Subsection NH of the 1995 through 2000 Addenda of Section III of the
ASME BPV Code.
DATES: Effective November 1, 2004. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register as of November 1, 2004.
ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. The documents may be accessed through the NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
NRC at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. The
availability of the Regulatory Analysis and the Environmental
Assessment is further discussed in Section 5 of this rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Tingen, Division of
Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Alternatively, you
may contact Mr. Tingen at (301) 415-1280, or via e-mail at:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
2. Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule; and Final Rule
2.1 Section III
2.2 Section XI
2.3 ASME OM Code
3. Section-by-Section Analysis
4. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report
5. Availability of Documents
6. Voluntary Consensus Standards
7. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
8. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
9. Regulatory Analysis
10. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
11. Backfit Analysis
12. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
13. Miscellaneous Public Comments on Proposed Rule
1. Background
On January 7, 2004 (69 FR 879), the NRC published a proposed rule
to amend 10 CFR Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities.'' The proposed rule presented revised
requirements for construction, inservice inspection (ISI), and
inservice testing (IST) of nuclear power plant components for public
comment. For construction, the proposed rule would have permitted the
use of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code, 2001 Edition and
the 2002 and 2003 Addenda for Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 components
with one new modification.
For ISI, the proposed rule would have permitted the use of Section
XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and
2003 Addenda for Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class MC, and Class CC
components with new modifications and limitations.
For IST, the proposed rule would have permitted the use of the ASME
OM Code, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda for Class 1, Class
2, and Class 3 pumps and valves with no new modifications or
limitations.
2.0 Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule; and Final Rule
Fifty-five comments on the proposed rule were received from
utilities, service organizations, and individuals. In response to the
public comments, the NRC has either removed or revised some
modifications and limitations that were proposed. A summary of the
public comments applicable to the proposed rule and their resolution
are provided in the following sections.
The NRC has considered and resolved the public comments and
incorporated changes into the final rule. The NRC is publishing the
final rule in Sec. 50.55a to incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition
and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Division 1 rules of Section III of the
ASME BPV Code; the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of
Division 1 rules of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code; and the 2001
Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code for
construction, ISI, and IST of components in nuclear power plants. The
2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Sections III and XI of
the ASME BPV Code are acceptable for use subject to limitations and
modifications. The 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of the
ASME OM Code is acceptable for use with no new limitations or
modifications.
2.1 Section III
The proposed rule would have revised Sec. 50.55a(b)(1) to
incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda
of Division 1 of Section III of the ASME BPV Code subject to
modifications and limitations. Accordingly, the existing modification
and limitation for weld leg dimensions and independence of inspection
in Sec. Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) and 50.55a(b)(1)(v), respectively, would
continue to apply when using the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of
Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code. The existing
modification and limitation in Sec. Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) and
50.55a(b)(1)(v) would continue to apply to the 2001 Edition through
2003 Addenda of Section III because the earlier Code provisions on
which these regulations are based were not revised in the 2001 Edition
through 2003 Addenda of Section III to address the underlying issues
which led to the NRC to impose the modification and limitation. There
were no public comments received on Sec. Sec. 50.55a(b)(1) and
50.55a(b)(1)(v). Therefore, Sec. Sec. 50.55a(b)(1) and 50.55a(b)(1)(v)
are adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(ii)--Weld Leg Dimensions
One commenter stated that the footnote to circumferential fillet
welded and socket welded joints in Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-
3673.2(b)-1 of Section III was renumbered in the Code. The NRC agrees.
Footnote 11 to Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 is referenced
in the existing regulation in Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(ii). Footnote 11 to
Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 was renumbered as Footnote 7
in the 1997 Addenda. Footnote 7 was renumbered as Footnote 11 in the
2000 Addenda. Footnote 11 was renumbered as Footnote 13 in the 2002
Addenda. Although the footnote was renumbered
[[Page 58805]]
in the Code, the contents of the footnote have not been revised. In
consideration of this public comment, the existing regulation in Sec.
50.55a(b)(1)(ii) is revised in this final rule to reference the
contents of the footnote instead of referencing the footnote number.
The revised Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(ii) states that the footnote to
circumferential fillet welded and socket welded joints in Figures NC-
3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 that permits a socket weld leg dimension
to be less than 1.09 of the nominal wall thickness of the pipe is not
approved for use when using the 1989 Addenda through 2003 Addenda of
Section III. This revision does not change the requirements in a
substantive manner.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)--Seismic Design
The proposed rule would have revised the existing limitation for
seismic design in Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) to prohibit the use of
Articles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 when using the 1994
Addenda through 2000 Addenda of Section III. The proposed rule stated
that the limitation in Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) does not apply to the
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section III because the earlier
Code provisions on which this regulation was based were revised in the
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section III to address a number of
the underlying issues which led the NRC to impose the limitation on the
ASME Code provisions. Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in the proposed rule
would have allowed use of these articles when using the 2001 Edition
and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III with certain limitations and
modifications. However, in consideration of public comment, the
revisions to Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) and Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in the
proposed rule are not adopted in this final rule.
Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule would have permitted
the use of the alternative method for evaluating reversing dynamic
building filtered loads and seismic loads in the 2001 Edition and the
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code
subject to modifications and limitations. However, Sec.
50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(A) of the proposed rule would have prohibited the use
of the alternative method for evaluating reversing dynamic loads for
piping subject to loads generated by reflected waves caused by flow
transients in NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600. In addition,
Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(B) of the proposed rule would have prohibited
the use of inelastic analyses for evaluating reversing dynamic loads in
NB-3228.6. Also, Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(C) of the proposed rule would
have provided an alternate Level B stress limit for reversing dynamic
loads. Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(D) of the proposed rule would have
supplemented the requirements for the calculation of inertial moment.
Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(E) of the proposed rule would have prohibited
the use of the B2 `stress indices specified in ND-3655(b)(3)
and would have required that the allowable B2 `stress
indices specified in NB-3656(b)(3) and NC-3655(b)(3) be used instead of
the allowable B2 `stress indices specified in ND-3655(b)(3).
Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)(F) of the proposed rule would have allowed the
use of an allowable stress limit of 6SM in the evaluation of
the range of resultant moment only when it could be demonstrated that
the global piping system response to the anchor movement does not
create significant inelastic strain concentrations when using the
provisions in NB-3656(b)(4), NC-3655(b)(4), and ND-3655(b)(4).
SM is the design stress intensity limit for a material and
is tabulated in Section II of the ASME Code. A demonstration that the
anchor movement does not create significant inelastic strain
concentrations would not have been required if an allowable stress
limit of 3SM were used instead of 6SM in the
evaluation of the range of resultant moment.
The NRC received a large number of public comments on the
modifications and limitations in Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(vi). The public
comments provided technical reasoning why the modifications and
limitations in Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) were unnecessary and recommended
their deletion. For example, ASME submitted an 83 page position paper
in response to the modifications and limitations in (b)(1)(vi) of the
proposed rule. It should be noted that the NRC's concerns regarding the
alternative method for evaluating reversing dynamic building filtered
loads and seismic loads began with changes in the 1994 Addenda through
1996 Addenda and were discussed in an amendment to Sec. 50.55a issued
in September 1999 (64 FR 51370). The ASME formed a special working
group to evaluate the NRC's concerns. Although the special working
group resolved some the NRC's concerns, a few significant issues
remain.
The ASME submittal also recommended that the NRC prohibit the use
of the revised seismic design provisions in the 2001 Edition and the
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III at this time. The ASME stated that
the NRC and ASME should resolve their technical differences over the
modifications and limitations in Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) before
permitting the use of revised seismic design provisions in the 2001
Edition and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III. The NRC agrees. This
would allow the NRC to discuss the technical details including recent
piping dynamic testing in a more comprehensive manner. In consideration
of public comments, the revision to Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) in the
proposed rule and the modifications and limitations in Sec.
50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in the proposed rule are not adopted in this final
rule. The existing limitation for seismic design in Sec.
50.55a(b)(1)(iii) is revised in this final rule to prohibit the use of
Articles NB-3200, NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 when using the 1994
Addenda through 2003 Addenda of Section III.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vii)--Subsection NH
Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vii) in the proposed rule would have
prohibited the use of Subsection NH of the 2001 Edition through 2003
Addenda of Section III of the ASME BPV Code and would have withdrawn
current approval of Subsection NH of the 1995 Addenda through 2000
Addenda of Section III of the ASME BPV Code. The scope of Subsection NH
includes Class 1 components that function in water, steam, sodium,
helium, or any other process fluid. The special design provisions in
Subsection NH apply to Class 1 components that are required to function
at elevated metal temperatures where creep and relaxation effects may
be significant and for which the stress limits and design provisions in
Subsection NB of Section III are not applicable. These stress limits
and design provisions of Subsection NB are applicable only to service
conditions where creep and relaxation effects do not exist. The
proposed rule stated that the elevated temperature provisions in
Subsection NH, applicable to certain Class 1 components in future
advanced reactor designs such as liquid metal and high-temperature gas-
cooled reactor designs, have not been reviewed by the NRC for technical
adequacy because the design provisions in Subsection NH were thought
not to be applicable to any currently operating nuclear power plant nor
to any currently approved standard advanced light-water reactor plant
design.
A commenter stated that prohibiting the use of Subsection NH
because the NRC has not performed a technical review is not adequate
justification. The commenter stated that the NRC should provide
technical reasons why Subsection NH is not approved for use.
[[Page 58806]]
The NRC disagrees and, with the exception of the application of
Subsection NH to pressurizer heater sleeves constructed from Type 316
stainless steel, is unable to provide technical comments on Subsection
NH at this time because it has not performed a comprehensive review of
Subsection NH. A public comment on the proposed rule indicated that
Subsection NH is used for the design and construction of pressurizer
heater sleeves (a pressure boundary component). Accordingly, the NRC is
approving the use of Subsection NH for this application. The maximum
service condition for Type 316 stainless steel components that are
designed and constructed in accordance with the currently approved
provisions in Subsection NB is 800 [deg]F because the reduction in
material strength due to creep and relaxation effects are negligible at
temperatures below 800 [deg]F. Subsection NH provides specialized
design and construction provisions when temperatures exceed 800 [deg]F.
The temperature of Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves
reaches approximately 900 [deg]F; therefore, Subsection NH is
applicable. At 900 [deg]F, creep and relaxation effects reduce the
allowable stress at 800 [deg]F by approximately 10 percent for Type 316
stainless steel. Therefore, a 100 [deg]F increase in temperature above
800 [deg]F does not significantly reduce the material strength of Type
316 stainless steel. The use of pressurizer heater sleeves constructed
of Type 316 stainless steel is limited to only one type of reactor
plant design in the United States. Pressurizer heater sleeves in other
reactor plant designs are constructed of different materials and the
temperature of the pressurizer heater sleeves in the other designs does
not exceed 800 [deg]F. Furthermore, many years operating experience
indicate that pressurizer heater sleeves have not experienced creep and
relaxation effects. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the use of
Subsection NH for Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves
is technically acceptable and will provide reasonable assurance of
adequate protection to public health and safety.
The NRC has not performed a full technical review of Subsection NH
for other Class 1 components in future advanced reactor designs such as
liquid metal and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designs where
service conditions could reach 1500 [deg]F. At these service
conditions, creep and relaxation are more pronounced. Therefore, the
NRC is unable to approve the use of Subsection NH for components other
than Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves. In
consideration of public comment, Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(vii) is revised to
allow the application of Subsection NH to Type 316 stainless steel
pressurizer heater sleeves only where service conditions do not cause
the component to reach temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F. Section
50.55a(b)(1)(vii) in the proposed rule is renumbered as Sec.
50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in this final rule. Section 11, ``Backfit Analysis,''
below, has been revised to address this last comment.
2.2 Section XI
The proposed rule would have revised Sec. 50.55a(b)(2) to
incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda
of Division 1 of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code subject to proposed
modifications and limitations. Accordingly, the existing modifications
and limitations for quality assurance, Class 1 piping, underwater
welding, reconciliation of quality requirements, certification of
nondestructive examination personnel, substitution of alternative
method, and Table IWB-2500-1 examination requirements in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xix),
and Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi), respectively, would continue to apply when
using the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1,
of the ASME BPV Code. The existing modifications and limitations in
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xii),
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) would continue to apply
to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI because the
earlier Code provisions on which these regulations are based were not
revised in the 2001 through 2003 Addenda of Section XI to address the
underlying issues which led the NRC to impose the modifications and
limitations. There were no public comments on Sec. 50.55a(b)(2), Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xxi). Therefore, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2), Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(x), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xii), Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xxi) are adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii)--Reconciliation of Quality Requirements
One commenter stated that the existing modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) for the reconciliation of quality requirements is no
longer applicable because a footnote was added to IWA-4222 that
resolves the issue. The footnote was added in the 1999 Addenda to
Section XI and clarifies that the provision in IWA-4222(a)(2) does not
negate the requirement to implement the Owner's quality assurance
program nor does it affect Owner commitments to regulatory and
enforcement authorities. The NRC agrees that Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii)
is no longer applicable because the footnote addresses NRC reasons for
initially implementing Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) in final rule dated
September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51374). In consideration of this public
comment, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) is revised in this final rule to be
applicable only when using the 1995 Addenda through 1998 Edition of
Section XI.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)--Footnote 10
The proposed rule would have added Footnote 10 to Sec.
50.55a(b)(2) to indicate that the NRC has issued Order EA-03-009 which
imposed enhanced reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head inspections at
pressurized water reactors (PWRs). In February 2003, the NRC issued the
Order to licensees of PWRs to establish interim inspection requirements
that would ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. The
Order was revised on February 20, 2004. The Order imposes enhanced
requirements for PWR licensees that supplement areas of Section XI of
the ASME BPV Code to ensure the structural and leakage integrity of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary. The requirements imposed by the
Order do not conflict with the requirements in Section XI of the ASME
BPV Code but are needed to enhance Code requirements. Licensees are
required to meet the requirements in the Order as a supplement to the
requirements in the 2001 Edition with the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of
Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. Licensees of PWRs using editions and
addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code earlier than the 2001 Edition
are currently required to apply the requirements in the Order to
supplement the use of their applicable Code of record.
One commenter incorrectly interpreted Footnote 10 in the proposed
rule. The commenter stated that Footnote 10 would incorporate the
requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 50.55a. The NRC notes that it
never intended to incorporate the requirements of the Order into 10 CFR
50.55a in this rulemaking. This final rule does not incorporate the
requirements of the Order into 10 CFR 50.55a; it simply alerts the
reader to the Order. Footnote 10 is adopted without change in this
final rule.
[[Page 58807]]
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)--Examination of Concrete Containments
This proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for
examination of concrete containments in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) to
apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division
1, of the ASME BPV Code. The modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)
continues to apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section
XI because the earlier ASME BPV Code provisions on which this
regulation was based were not revised in the 2001 Edition through 2003
Addenda of Section XI to address the underlying issues which led the
NRC to impose the modification of the ASME Code provisions. The
proposed rule would have also revised the existing modification for
examination of concrete containments in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) to
require a new modification, which is discussed below, when using the
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the
ASME BPV Code. There were no public comments received on Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(viii) in the proposed rule. Therefore, Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(viii) is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G)--Corrosion Protection Medium (CPM)
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G) of the proposed rule would have
required that CPM be restored in accordance with the quality assurance
program requirements specified in IWA-1400 when using the 2001 Edition
through 2003 Addenda of Section XI. IWL-4110 of Section XI defines the
scope of the repair and replacement activities associated with concrete
containments. IWL-4110(b) specifies those items that are exempt from
repair and replacement activity requirements. A new provision, IWL-
4110(b)(3), was added in the 2002 Addenda exempting the removal,
replacement, or addition of the concrete containment post-tensioning
system CPM from repair and replacement requirements. Prior to the 2002
Addenda, IWL-4000 specifies that the CPM must be restored following a
concrete containment post-tensioning system repair and replacement
activity.
CPM is applied to containment post-tension system components to
prevent corrosion. The function of the containment post-tension system
is to ensure the structural integrity of the concrete containment
structure under design basis loadings, and CPM is relied upon to
maintain the integrity of the containment post-tension system.
Therefore, the restoration of the concrete containment post-tensioning
system CPM is important to ensure that the containment integrity and
load capacity satisfy design basis requirements under accident
conditions. For example, the acceptable concentration of water soluble
chlorides, nitrates and sulfides of the replacement CPM must be
verified. The amount of CPM to be installed and the method used to
apply the CPM must be specified.
One commenter stated that the provisions in IWL-2500 must be
applied to the restoration of CPM, and that these provisions were not
revised in the 2002 Addenda. The commenter stated that quality
assurance requirements must be applied when implementing IWL-2500. The
NRC disagrees. The NRC believes that the provisions in IWL-2500 are not
applicable to items that are exempt from Code repair and replacement
activity requirements. Therefore, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G) is
adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)--Examination of Metal Containments and the
Liners of Concrete Containments
The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for
examination of metal containments and the liners of concrete
containments in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) to apply to the 2001 Edition
through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code.
The proposed rule stated that with the exception of the visual
examination requirements specified in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B), the
modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) would continue to apply to the
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI because the earlier
Code provisions on which this regulation was based were not revised in
the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI to address the
underlying issues which led to the NRC to impose the modification on
the ASME Code provisions. The minimum illumination and distance visual
examination provisions in Table IWA-2210-1 in Section XI were revised
in the 2003 Addenda and are equivalent to the minimum illumination and
distance visual examination requirements in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B).
Therefore, the proposed rule revised the existing modification for
examination of metal containments and the liners of concrete
containments in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) to specify that Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) does not apply when using the 2001 Edition with the
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code.
Several commenters stated that the revision to Table IWA-2210-1 in
the 2003 Addenda of Section XI was rescinded by a special Erratum in
December 2003. Therefore, the existing modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) should continue to apply when using the 2001
Edition with the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of
the ASME BPV Code. The NRC agrees. In consideration of the public
comment, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) is revised in this final rule to
require that Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(B) continue to apply when using the
2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii)--Flaws in Class 3 Piping
The proposed rule would have revised Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) to
eliminate the authorization to use Code Case N-513. The existing
regulation in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) authorizes the use of Code Cases
N-513 and N-523-1. Code Case N-513 is now approved in Regulatory Guide
1.147, ``Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI,
Division 1.'' Regulatory Guide 1.147 (Revision 13) was incorporated by
reference into Sec. 50.55a in a final rule dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR
40469). Thus, it is no longer necessary to authorize the use of Code
Case N-513 in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) because this code case is
included in Regulatory Guide 1.147. Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) would
continue to approve the use of Code Case N-523-1 because Code Case N-
523-1 is currently not included in Regulatory Guide 1.147. There were
no public comments received on Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiii) and therefore
is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv)--Appendix VIII Personnel Qualification
The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for
Appendix VIII personnel qualification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) to
apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division
1, of the ASME BPV Code. The modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv)
continues to apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section
XI because the earlier Code provisions on which this regulation was
based were not revised in the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of
Section XI to address the underlying issues which led to the NRC to
impose the modification. The proposed rule also revised Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) to correct an oversight. The existing regulation
incorrectly states that the annual practice requirements in VII-4240 of
Supplement VII of Section XI may be used. The reference to Supplement
VII is incorrect; it should be Appendix VII.
[[Page 58808]]
Therefore, the proposed rule stated that Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) should
be revised to state that the annual practice requirements in VII-4240
of Appendix VII of Section XI may be used.
One commenter requested that the existing annual training
requirements in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) be revised to change the
required number of hours of training that must be completed before
performing ultrasonic examinations. The NRC declines to make this
change because the proposed rule did not suggest an amendment to the
required number of hours of training that must be completed before
performing ultrasonic examinations, and the NRC currently does not have
a basis for supporting such a change. There were no other public
comments received on Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv). Therefore, Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)--Appendix VIII Qualification and Coverage
Requirements
The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for
Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification requirements in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to apply to the 2001 Edition of Section XI, Division
1, of the ASME BPV Code. The modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)
would continue to apply to the 2001 Edition of Section XI because the
earlier Code provisions on which this regulation was based were not
revised in the 2001 Edition of Section XI to address the underlying
issues which led the NRC to impose the modification. There were no
public comments received on Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Therefore, Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) is adopted without change in this final rule.
The proposed rule would have revised the existing regulation in
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) to specify that the flaw depth sizing
provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII are
not applicable when Appendix VIII is implemented in accordance with
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) currently provides an
alternative method that licensees may use for implementing Appendix
VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII. The existing regulation
specifies that the flaw depth sizing provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(a)
of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII are not applicable when using the flaw
depth sizing provisions specified in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). This
revision is needed to correct an oversight that the flaw depth sizing
provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII also
do not apply when using the flaw depth sizing provisions specified in
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). Thus, the flaw depth sizing provisions in
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) were revised in the proposed rule to also
reference Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to Appendix VIII. There
were no public comments received on Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1).
Therefore, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(C)(1) is adopted without change in
this final rule.
The proposed rule would have revised the existing regulation in
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) to eliminate the approval to use Code Case N-
552. Code Case N-552 is now approved in Regulatory Guide 1.147,
Revision 13, which was incorporated by reference into Sec. 50.55a in a
final rule dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40469). Thus, it is no longer
necessary to approve the use of Code Case N-552 in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) because this code case is included in Regulatory
Guide 1.147. There were no public comments received on Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J). Therefore, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(J) is adopted
without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)--System Leakage Test
The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for
system leakage tests in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) to continue prohibiting
the use of certain system leakage test provisions in the 1997 Addenda
through 2001 Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
The proposed rule stated that the modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xx) does not apply to the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section
XI because the earlier Code provisions on which this regulation was
based were revised in the 2002 Addenda of Section XI to address the
underlying issues which led to the NRC to impose the modification of
the ASME Code provisions. The revised system leakage test provisions in
IWA-5213(a) are equivalent to the existing requirements in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xx).
One commenter stated that the system leakage test provisions in
IWA-5213(a) were revised in the 2003 Addenda of Section XI not the 2002
Addenda as stated in the proposed rule. The NRC agrees. In
consideration of the public comment, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) is revised
in this final rule so that the modification applies when using IWA-
5213(a), 1997 through 2002 Addenda.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii)--Surface Examination
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) in the proposed rule would have
prohibited the use of a new provision in IWA-2220 allowing ultrasonic
(UT) examination. The provisions of Code Case N-615, ``Ultrasonic
Examination as a Surface Examination Method for Category B-F and B-J
Piping Welds,'' were incorporated into IWA-2220 in the 2001 Edition of
Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. Code Case N-615 and IWA-2220 allow a
surface examination to be conducted using a UT examination method. The
UT examination is conducted from the inside surface of certain piping
welds. Other allowable surface examination methods (magnetic particle
or liquid penetrant) are conducted from the outside surface of certain
piping welds. The purpose of the these surface examinations is to
identify flaws in the outer surface of the weld. Revision 13 to
Regulatory Guide 1.147 did not approve the use of Code Case N-615 and
the proposed rule would have prohibited the use of the same UT
examination specified in IWA-2220. There are no provisions in Section
XI that address qualification requirements and performance
demonstration criteria and requirements to ensure proper consideration
of flaws in the outer surface of a piping weld when conducting a UT
examination from the inside surface of the piping weld.
One commenter stated that the proposed Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii)
should be deleted because IWA-2220 provides an acceptable UT
performance demonstration requirement. The NRC disagrees. For example,
IWA-2220 does not provide test specimen requirements, piping weld
material requirements, acceptable flaw types, performance demonstration
detection acceptance criteria, nor acceptable pipe specimen thickness.
A number of commenters requested that Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) be
revised to allow IWA-2220 surface examinations be conducted by UT
examination provided that the UT examination method has been
demonstrated by a successful performance demonstration. The commenters
stated that their revision addresses the NRC concern that there are no
qualification requirements or performance demonstration criteria in
Section XI for conducting a UT examination from the inside surface of
the piping weld. The NRC disagrees. The revision, as proposed by the
commenters, does not address the concern in the proposed rule. Appendix
I of Section XI requires that all piping examinations be performed in
accordance with Appendix VIII qualified procedures and personnel. The
final rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), requires that
licensees implement Appendix VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII
on an expedited basis. The NRC imposed this requirement on an expedited
basis
[[Page 58809]]
because there were shortcomings in the qualifications of personnel and
procedures in ensuring the reliability of nondestructive examination of
the reactor vessel and other components of the reactor coolant system
pressure boundary. The NRC believes that the imposition of performance
demonstration in Appendix VIII and its supplements has enhanced the
overall level of assurance of the reliability of UT examination
techniques in detecting and sizing flaws. The NRC is not approving the
use of new UT provision in IWA-2220 because qualification requirements
and performance demonstration criteria for the new UT provision are not
addressed in Appendix VIII. Therefore, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxii) is
adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii)--IWA-4461.4.2 Evaluation of Thermally Cut
Surfaces
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) of the proposed rule would have
required that all the adverse effects associated with the elimination
of mechanical processing following a thermal removal process listed in
IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) be considered by tests, inspections and
analyses. Tests, inspections and analyses are further discussed below.
IWA-4461.4 requires that the surface left in service after the metal is
removed by a thermal removal process be mechanically processed. A
thermal removal process is used to remove metal from a weld or base
metal. Thermal removal processes include oxyacetylene cutting, carbon
arc gouging, plasma cutting, metal disintegration machining and
electrodischarge machining. Thermal removal processes can leave cracks,
stress risers, very rough surfaces or heavy oxidations on the surface
of the metal. Mechanical processing involves the removal of any defects
from a surface of the metal by grinding, machining or filing, for
example. Subparagraph IWA-4461.4.2 was added in the 2001 Edition to
allow the elimination of mechanical processing of a thermally cut
surface when, due to field conditions, mechanical processing is deemed
impractical. IWA-4461.4.2 allows the elimination of mechanical
processing of thermally cut surfaces provided that the adverse effects
associated with the elimination of mechanical processing listed in IWA-
4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are considered by an evaluation. The adverse
effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) include soundness of
cut, material toughness, corrosion resistance, stresses, and oxidation
or other contamination. The proposed rule stated that it is unclear if
all the adverse effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are
required to be considered by evaluation or are licensees supposed to
determine which of the adverse effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1)
through (5) would be applicable. The proposed rule stated that tests,
inspections, and analyses would be required to evaluate the adverse
effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5). The proposed rule did
not describe any specific test, inspection or analysis. Licensees would
be responsible for determining the appropriate test, inspection, and
analysis for each of the items listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through
(5).
Several commenters explained that the provision IWA-4461.4.2(a)
requires that the evaluation shall include all those adverse effects
listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) in the evaluation. Other
commenters stated that not all of the adverse effects listed in IWA-
4461.4.2(a)(1) through (5) are applicable to all thermal processes and
that IWA-4461.4.2(c) requires that the evaluation document any adverse
effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1) through (a)(5) that are not
applicable in the Repair/Replacement Plan. Commenters also stated that
it is unreasonable for NRC to require tests, inspections, and analyses
to address each of the adverse effects listed in IWA-4461.4.2(a)(1)
through (5) to eliminate mechanical processing of a thermally cut
surface. The tests, inspections, and analyses as proposed in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) would make it impracticable for a licensee to use
the provisions in IWA-4461.4.2.
The NRC believes that it is impracticable to justify the
elimination of mechanical processing of a thermally cut surface in an
evaluation as specified in IWA-4461.4.2. It is not possible to evaluate
the adverse effects that can occur as a result of thermal cutting
without performing appropriate tests, inspections, and analyses. For
example, the provisions in IWA-4461.4.2 could be used to eliminate
mechanical processing for a carbon arc-gouging cut that removed a
hanger in a high radiation area. If the cut is made too close to the
load-bearing component, the metal on the load-bearing component could
be affected by an errant arc touching the load-bearing surface or
allowing some of the cutting spatter to become attached to the load-
bearing surface leaving an arc strike, a heat-affected zone or a stress
riser on the surface. The area around the cut must be inspected to make
certain that the cutting has not damaged the surface of the component.
Elimination of the inspection in a documented evaluation would not be
adequate even for this simple thermal cutting example. Furthermore, the
cut must be a safe distance from the surface of the component to
eliminate any possibility of leaving a mechanical (a rough, oxidized or
carburized surface) or metallurgical (a heat affected zone) stress
riser near or in the surface of the component. If the cut is made too
close to the final surface, a heat-affected zone from the cut could be
left in the final load-bearing surface or a very rough, highly oxidized
or carburized surface could be left very near the final load-bearing
surface. The exact distance from the cut surface must be determined by
an analysis or qualification testing of the configuration, not by a
documented evaluation.
The NRC agrees with the comment that the test, inspection, and
analysis provisions in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) of the proposed rule
would make it impracticable for a licensee to use IWA-4461.4.2.
Therefore, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiii) is revised in this final rule to
prohibit the use of the new provisions in IWA-4461.4.2.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv)--UT Performance Demonstration and Coverage
Requirements
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) in the proposed rule would have
prohibited the use of Appendix VIII and the supplements to Appendix
VIII, and Article I-3000 in the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of
the ASME BPV Code. The elements of the Performance Demonstration
Initiative (PDI) program were added to Appendix VIII and its
supplements and Article I-3000 in the 2002 Addenda. PDI is an
organization formed for the purpose of developing efficient, cost-
effective, and technically sound UT performance demonstration methods
to meet Appendix VIII requirements. The PDI program has evolved as
programs were developed for each Appendix VIII supplement. Article I-
3000, Examination Coverage, was also added in the 2002 Addenda to
provide UT examination coverage criteria for certain welds.
The final rule dated September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), requires
licensees to implement Appendix VIII and its supplements. The essential
elements of the PDI program were added to the final rule as Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) also provides UT examination
coverage criteria. Licensees are currently implementing Appendix VIII
and its supplements in accordance with Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). Although
the NRC, ASME, and PDI have made considerable progress in the
[[Page 58810]]
development of UT qualification and inspection requirements, the
addition of the PDI program into Section XI are not complete at this
time. As a result, differences exist between the modifications in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv), and the provisions in Appendix VIII and its
supplements and Article I-3000 in the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section
XI of the ASME BPV Code. Therefore, Appendix VIII and its supplements
and the UT coverage criteria in Article I-3000 can not be implemented
in accordance with Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) when using the 2002 and 2003
Addenda. Consequently, the proposed rule would have prohibited the use
of Appendix VIII and its supplements and Article I-3000 beyond the 2001
Edition.
The proposed rule stated that conflicts exist between the
modifications in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv), and the UT coverage provisions
in Article I-3000 in the 2002 and 2003 Addenda. Several commenters
stated that the use of the term ``conflicts'' in the proposed rule was
inappropriate. The NRC agrees and should have used term ``differences''
instead of ``conflicts.'' Commenters acknowledged that there are
differences between the UT coverage requirements in Article I-3000 and
the UT coverage requirements in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv).
A number of commenters requested that the proposed limitation in
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) be revised to allow the use of the UT coverage
requirements in Article I-3000. Commenters stated that the NRC should
accept the UT coverage requirements in Article I-3000 as an alternative
to the UT coverage requirements in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv). The NRC
disagrees. Article I-3000 requires that the UT coverage provisions be
applied when using UT examination procedures, equipment, and personnel
qualified by performance demonstration in accordance with Appendix
VIII. The NRC believes that allowing the use of the UT coverage
requirements in Article I-3000 would require revising the existing UT
coverage requirements in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to provide licensees
the choice of continuing to use the existing UT coverage requirements
in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) or using the UT coverage requirements in
Article I-3000. It is not the NRC's intention to periodically revise
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) to add new elements of the PDI program as the
program evolves. The purpose of the modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) is to provide a short-term solution that allows
licensees to implement an Appendix VIII program. The long-term solution
is to add the elements of the PDI program to Section XI or develop a
code case that can be used to implement Appendix VIII and remove Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv) from 10 CFR 50.55a. Therefore, Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xxiv) is adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)--Mitigation of Defects by ``Modification''
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) in the proposed rule would have
prohibited the use of the provisions in IWA-4340 when using the 2001
Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV
Code. IWA-4340 was added in the 2000 Addenda and provides requirements
for the mitigation of defects by ``modification.'' Paragraph IWA-4340
allows a defect to remain in a component provided that the defect can
be eliminated from the pressure boundary by ``modification.''
Commenters stated that although additional provisions were added in
the 2000 Addenda, Section XI has always allowed mitigation of defects
by ``modification.'' Commenters objected to the NRC prohibiting the use
of this longstanding Code requirement. Commenters also stated that
prohibiting the use of IWA-4340 would significantly impact licensees in
terms of cost, resources, and plant shutdowns. IWA-4340
``modifications'' can be designed and installed by most plants within
the 72-hour technical specification allowed outage time. These
``modifications'' are typically used when replacement or excavation and
repair welding of the defect cannot be performed within the technical
specification allowed outage time. Commenters stated that it is not
unusual for a plant to install several ``modifications'' in an
operating cycle. Commenters stated that licensees would have to request
authorization of an alternative pursuant to Sec. 50.55a(a)(3) to
install modifications if use of IWA-4340 is prohibited. This would
result in a significant increase in regulatory burden, costs, and plant
outage time and would also adversely impact NRC resources. The NRC
disagrees that the mitigation of a defect by ``modification'' in
Section XI is a longstanding Code provision. Section XI does not
specifically address mitigation of defects by ``modification'' in the
editions and addenda prior to the 2000 Addenda. The NRC is also unaware
of any ASME Section XI interpretation that specifically addresses
mitigation of defects by ``modification.'' Furthermore, the NRC has
authorized many alternatives pursuant to Sec. 50.55a(a)(3) that are
similar to those in IWA-4340. These alternatives were authorized on a
case-by-case basis and addressed pressure testing, flaw growth
evaluation, and reexamination requirements. Licensees believed these
modifications were not permitted by the ASME Code, and therefore,
concluded that authorizations of alternatives were necessary. Although
some Section XI code cases address repair of defects on a limited
basis, such as the use of weld overlays, new provisions for repairing
defects were added in the 2000 Addenda.
One commenter stated that the NRC had previously approved the use
of provisions that are similar to those in IWA-4340. The commenter
stated that the NRC should approve the same provisions in IWA-4340. The
NRC agrees that, in some instances, it had previously approved the use
of mitigative methods or alternatives that could fall under the
provisions of IWA-4340, but the methods approved by the NRC were
significantly more comprehensive than those in IWA-4340. For example,
the NRC approved the use of Code Case N-504-2, ``Alternative Rule for
Repair of Class 1, 2, and 3 Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping,'' in
Regulatory Guide 1.147. The NRC notes that the provisions in Code Case
N-504-2 are significantly more comprehensive than the provisions
required by IWA-4340. The NRC has also authorized use of weld overlays
as corrective action for intergranular stress corrosion cracking in
plant-specific submittals. Authorization was based on adequate flaw
evaluation, examination frequency, and pressure testing provided by
licensees in their proposed alternative. However, the NRC has also
disapproved the use of mitigative methods that would be allowed under
IWA-4340. For example, the NRC disapproved the use of Code Case N-562-
1, ``Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of Class 3
Moderate Energy Carbon Steel Piping,'' in Regulatory Guide 1.193,
``ASME Code Cases Not Approved For Use.'' The NRC disapproved the use
of Code Case N-562-1 because the ASME Code and the code case do not
provide criteria for determining the rate of the extent of degradation
of the repair or surrounding base metal and do not specify examination
requirements.
The proposed rule stated that IWA-4520(b)(2) exempts piping, pump
and valve welding or brazing that does not penetrate through the
pressure boundary from any pressure test. Since the modification to
mitigate the defect will become the new pressure boundary and the
modification may be attached to the pressure boundary by welds that do
not penetrate through the pressure boundary, pressure testing would not
be required. The NRC proposed to not
[[Page 58811]]
accept the elimination of pressure testing requirements for a
modification that will function as a pressure boundary.
Commenters stated that the reference to IWA-4520(b)(2) in the
proposed rule is incorrect. The NRC agrees. The NRC intended to
reference IWA-4540(b)(3) in the proposed rule. IWA-4540(b)(3) exempts
piping, pump and valve welding or brazing that does not penetrate
through the pressure boundary from pressure testing, not IWA-
4520(b)(2).
Commenters did not discuss if the pressure test exemption in IWA-
4540(b)(3) would be applicable to IWA-4340 ``modifications.'' They
simply stated that Section XI requires a pressure test for new welds
that are a part of the pressure boundary. The NRC agrees that pressure
testing for new pressure boundary weld is a requirement. However, the
NRC is concerned that licensees could interpret the provisions in IWA-
4540(b)(3) that pressure tests are not required for certain IWA-4340
modifications such as an encapsulation of a defect that does not yet,
but eventually could, breach the pressure boundary for example. The NRC
believes that pressure testing the ``modification'' is necessary to
validate the structural integrity of the ``modification.''
The proposed rule stated that IWA-4340(c) requires that each
licensee define the successive examinations to be performed after the
completion of the ``modification.'' The purpose of the successive
examinations is to monitor the defect to detect propagation beyond the
limits of the ``modification'' and, when practicable, to validate the
projected growth of the defect. The Code is unclear as to whether it
permits a defect to propagate outside the physical boundary of the
``modification'' or requires that a licensee's examination program
predict propagation of the defect such that the licensee would be able
to identify, in advance, a defect that is expected to propagate outside
the area physically modified such that corrective action could be
taken.
Commenters explained that a flaw outside of the modification might
be acceptable until it reached the condition of a defect. The condition
would be unacceptable if the flaw propagated into a defect. Commenters
also indicated that because each ``modification'' is unique, it is not
possible to specify examination frequency criteria that could be
applied to all defects that are mitigated by ``modification.''
Commenters stated that IWA-4340(c) requires that, if practicable, the
growth of the defect be predicted and licensees establish an
examination method that would demonstrate that the defect has not
propagated beyond the limits of the ``modification.'' The examinations
would also validate the predicted growth assumptions. In other cases,
it may not be practical to predict the growth of the defect. Commenters
stated that the examination frequency would have to account for this
condition. The NRC believes that IWA-4340(c) is unacceptable because it
does not specify minimum periodic examinations that are capable of
validating the predicted defect growth assumptions. The NRC believes
that it is appropriate for the Code to establish minimum periodic
examination requirements. Licensees may always do more than Code
minimum requirements.
One commenter states that it is inappropriate for the NRC to modify
the use of Code provisions that were previously accepted by the NRC.
The NRC disagrees. The modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) was not
included in the final rule that incorporated by reference the 2000
Addenda of Section XI in Sec. 50.55a (67 FR 60520: September 26, 2002)
due to an oversight by the NRC. The NRC did not identify that these
Code provisions were added when it reviewed the 2000 Addenda of Section
XI. The NRC has determined that this modification should only apply to
those licensees who implement the 2001 Edition and later editions and
addenda of Section XI, and should not be backfit to those licensees who
update their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000
Addenda in accordance with Sec. 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). The NRC has
determined it is acceptable not to backfit the licensees who update
their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000 Addenda
because those licensees will be required at the next 10-year interval
to update their ISI programs to prohibit the relevant Code provisions.
Thus, any problems would be caught during the next 10-year interval.
The prohibition of the relevant Code provisions is not considered a
backfit because they are imposed only as part of the routine updating
required as part of the 120-month updating and do not constitute a
significant change to, or fundamental modification of, the existing ISI
program.
Although not discussed in the proposed rule, the NRC has additional
concerns about the use of IWA-4340. For example, Section XI, Appendix
I, Ultrasonic Examination, directs users to the specific examination
methods to be followed, including the performance demonstration
requirements of Appendix VIII for certain components. IWA-4340(a)
states that defects shall be characterized using nondestructive
examination but has no specific requirements regarding nondestructive
examination methods to be used. The NRC believes that IWA-4340(a)
should specify the qualification requirements and examination methods
by reference to existing rules in the Code where applicable, or where
not applicable, the process to be followed to demonstrate the
capability of the techniques to be used.
IWA-4340 could be used to mitigate non-planar defects, such as
caused by flow accelerated corrosion or microbiological induced
corrosion. The ASME has issued certain code cases, such as Code Cases
N-561-1, ``Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of
Class 2 and High Energy Class 3 Carbon Steel Piping,'' and N-562-1,
dealing with wall thickness restoration for non-planar defects. The NRC
has found these code cases to be unacceptable because of the absence of
criteria concerning the extent and rate of degradation of the repair
and reinspection frequencies and because the root cause of the
degradation may not be mitigated. For similar reasons, the NRC finds
IWA-4340 unacceptable for use to mitigate non-planar defects.
Licensees have proposed to mitigate circumferential defects above
the partial penetration weld in control rod drive nozzles by partially
removing the defect and replacing the removed material with weldment,
thereby ``embedding'' the defect. The NRC has found such proposals to
be unacceptable because of the possibility of additional cracking in
the embedding weld and because of safety concerns posed by severance of
the nozzle. The NRC finds IWA-4340 unacceptable because it could be
used to mitigate such defects.
Under IWA-4340, if a defect were to propagate beyond the limits of
a modification, a licensee could perform repeated repairs to the same
location. The NRC believes this is unacceptable because it would
represent a failure of the original evaluation to correctly predict the
projected growth of the defect.
For these reasons, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv) is adopted without
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)--Pressure Testing Mechanical Joints
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) of the proposed rule would have
supplemented the test provisions in IWA-4540 of the 2001 Edition and
the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code to require
that Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints be
[[Page 58812]]
pressure tested in accordance with IWA-4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of
Section XI. The requirements to pressure test Class 1, 2, and 3
mechanical joints undergoing repair and replacement activities were
deleted in the 1999 Addenda of Section XI. Therefore, pressure testing
of mechanical joints is no longer required by Section XI when
performing IWA-4000 repair and replacement activities. The proposed
rule would have retained the pressure and testing requirements in IWA-
4540(c) of the 1998 Edition when using the 2001 Edition through 2003
Addenda because there was no justification for eliminating the
requirements for pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints.
Pressure testing of mechanical joints affected by repair and
replacement activities is necessary to ensure and verify the integrity
of the pressure boundary. In the proposed rule, the NRC requested that
commenters provide additional information that can be used to justify
the elimination of the pressure tests requirements in IWA-4540(c) of
the 1998 Edition of Section XI.
Several commenters stated that the Code requirement to conduct a
system leakage test during operation at nominal operating pressure to
verify leakage after reassembly of a mechanical joint was deleted in
the 1999 Addenda of Section XI. The commenters indicated that this Code
requirement was deleted because mechanical joint leakage is not
prohibited by Section XI. The commenters contend that Section XI does
not provide leakage acceptance criteria, and it has always been the
responsibility of each licensee to determine if the leakage is
acceptable and if corrective action is required. Furthermore, they
contend that the purpose of the system leakage test in the 1998 Edition
and earlier editions and addenda of Section XI is to monitor for
leakage not verify the structural integrity of the pressure boundary.
One commenter pointed out that the revised system leakage test
requirements in the 1999 Addenda and later editions and addenda are
consistent with the construction requirements for mechanical joint
leakage in Section III of the ASME Code. Section III does not prohibit
leakage at mechanical connections and only requires that mechanical
connection leakage not mask leakage at other joints. Commenters stated
that operators and system engineers periodically monitor systems for
leakage and evaluate if corrective action is warranted when leakage is
identified. Commenters also stated that post maintenance test programs
specify requirements for leak testing mechanical connections following
reassembly. Section XI does not provide any acceptance criteria for
mechanical joint leakage following reassembly, and it has always been
the responsibility of licensees to determine if corrective action is
warranted.
The NRC and commenters generally agree that repaired or replaced
mechanical joints should be pressure tested following Code repair and
replacement activities. However, the NRC and commenters disagree on the
role of the Code for providing this guidance. The NRC believes that it
is inappropriate to rely on regulations or programs other than the
Code, such as testing requirements in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50,
``Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel
Reprocessing Plants,'' to provide detailed test requirements for
mechanical joint repair and replacement activities. With the exception
of Section XI, there are no other NRC regulations that provide detailed
guidance on pressure testing mechanical joints that are repaired or
replaced in accordance with Section XI. The test requirements in
Section XI are technically correct and are also consistent with the
test requirements in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50. After consideration
of public comments, the NRC finds that Code pressure testing of
mechanical joints after repair and replacement activities is still
warranted, and that reliance on programs which are not under Code
jurisdiction is not an appropriate substitute for specifying Code
repair and replacement requirements.
One commenter states that it is inappropriate for the NRC to modify
the use of Code provisions that were previously accepted by the NRC.
The NRC disagrees. The modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) was not
included in the final rule that incorporated by reference the 1999
Addenda of Section XI in Sec. 50.55a (67 FR 60520: September 26, 2002)
due to an oversight by the NRC. The NRC did not identify that these
Code provisions were added when it reviewed the 1999 Addenda of Section
XI. The NRC has determined that this modification should only apply to
those licensees who implement the 2001 Edition and later editions and
addenda of Section XI, and should not be backfit to those licensees who
update their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000
Addenda in accordance with Sec. 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). The NRC has
determined it is acceptable not to backfit the licensees who update
their ISI programs to the 1998 Edition with the 1999 and 2000 Addenda,
because those licensees will be required at the next 10-year interval
to update their ISI programs to prohibit the relevant Code provisions.
Thus, any problems would be caught during the next 10-year interval.
The prohibition of the relevant Code provisions is not considered a
backfit because they are imposed only as part of the routine updating
required as part of the 120-month updating and do not constitute a
significant change to, or fundamental modification of, the existing ISI
program.
For these reasons, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) is adopted without
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii)--Removal of Insulation
The proposed modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) consisted of
two parts. The first part would have supplemented a new provision in
IWA-5242(a) to require that insulation be removed before conducting
visual examinations on bolting susceptible to stress corrosion cracking
(SCC). The purpose of IWA-5242 is to periodically examine bolted
connections for evidence of boric acid leakage. The 17-4 precipitation-
hardened (PH) stainless steels and the 410 stainless steels installed
in borated systems are susceptible to SCC when aged at a temperature
below 1100 [deg]F or have a Rockwell Method C hardness value above 30.
A-286 stainless steel studs or bolts are also susceptible to SCC when
preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square inch or higher. Thus, the
insulation must be removed to visually examine these bolting materials.
Code Case N-616, ``Alternative Requirements for VT-2 Visual Examination
of Classes 1, 2, and 3 Insulated Pressure Retaining Bolted Connections
Section XI, Division 1,'' included, among other things, a provision
allowing bolted connections with certain bolting materials to be
examined without removing the insulation. However, this could prevent
identification of signs of degraded bolting if the bolting is
susceptible to SCC. The provisions of Code Case N-616 were added to
IWA-5242(a) in the 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The
NRC also conditionally accepted the use of Code Case N-616 in
Regulatory Guide 1.147, by requiring that insulation be removed to
examine 17-4 PH stainless steel or 410 stainless steel studs or bolts
aged at a temperature below 1100 [deg]F or with a Rockwell Method C
hardness value above 30; and A-286 stainless steel studs or bolts
preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square inch or higher.
One commenter stated that the ASME determined that a VT-2 visual
examination may not be able to detect
[[Page 58813]]
SCC in 17-4 PH and 410 stainless steel installed in borated systems and
recommended that NRC not adopt the modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) requiring removal of insulation prior to examining
17-4 PH and 410 stainless steel studs or bolts. The NRC agrees that it
is not the intent of a VT-2 visual examination to detect SCC. However,
VT-2 visual examination is an effective method for determining when
conditions necessary to support SCC, such as boric acid leakage on or
near a bolted connection, are present. The NRC believes that it is not
prudent to attempt to detect boric acid leakage with insulation in
place on connections bolted with materials susceptible to SCC. For
these reasons, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) requiring that insulation be
removed when conducting visual examinations on bolting susceptible to
SCC is adopted without change in this final rule.
The second part of Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) in the proposed rule
would have supplemented IWA-5242(a) to require that a VT-2 examination
of bolted connections be performed during system leakage tests. One
commenter noted that the reason for this part of the proposed
modification was not specifically addressed in the statement of
considerations for the proposed rule. The NRC agrees. The proposed rule
identified two areas in IWA-5242(a) that need to be supplemented, and
the statement of considerations only described one of the areas. The
reason for the second part of Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvii) is as follows.
Requirement (a) of Code Case N-533-1, ``Alternative Requirements for
VT-2 Visual Examination of Class 1, 2, and 3 Insulated Pressure-
Retaining Bolted Connections,'' states that a ``system pressure test
and VT-2 visual examination shall be performed each refueling outage
for Class 1 connections and each period for Class 2 and 3 connections
without removal of insulation.'' With the exception of Requirement (a),
the other provisions of Code Case N-533-1 were added to IWA-5242(a) in
the 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The NRC proposed
this modification because it appeared that all of the provisions of
Code Case N-533-1 were not added in the 2003 Addenda. After further
review, the NRC concludes that VT-2 examination of insulated bolted
connections during system leakage tests is required by Tables IWB/C/D-
2500-1 and by IWA-5241 of Section XI. Tables IWB/C/D-2500-1 require VT-
2 visual examination during system leakage testing for all pressure
retaining components. Paragraph IWA-5241 requires VT-2 visual
examination of the accessible external exposed surfaces of pressure-
retaining components for evidence of leakage and applies to insulated
and non-insulated components. Therefore, the proposed requirement that
a VT-2 examination of bolted connections be performed during system
leakage tests is not adopted in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii)--Reconciliation of Quality Assurance
Requirements
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) of the proposed rule would have
supplemented a new provision in IWA-4226.1 to require that repair/
replacement components be manufactured, procured, and controlled as
safety-related under a quality assurance program meeting the
requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. The proposed rule stated
that the purpose of IWA-4226.1 (2003 Addenda) and Code Case N-554-2,
``Alternative Requirements for Reconciliation of Replacement Items and
Addition of New Systems,'' Section XI, Division 1 is to provide
requirements for reconciling design requirements when using later
editions of a construction code or Section III. The proposed rule
stated that IWA-4226.1 and Code Case N-554-2 do not require
reconciliation of the quality assurance requirements for certification,
Code symbol stamping, data reports, and authorized inspection. For
example, a component manufactured in a commercial shop that does not
have a quality assurance program could be used in a safety-related
application without having to reconcile quality assurance requirements.
In Regulatory Guide 1.147, the NRC conditionally accepted the use of
Code Case N-554-2 by requiring that repair/replacement components be
manufactured, procured, and controlled as safety-related under a
quality assurance program meeting the requirements of Appendix B to 10
CFR Part 50. The modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) in the
proposed rule would have imposed the same quality assurance
requirements on IWA-4226.1.
One commenter stated that the proposed modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) would prevent licensees from using a commercial
grade dedication program to fabricate or procure components that are no
longer available through an Appendix B supplier. The commenter proposed
a revision to Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) that would allow licensees to
use a commercial grade dedication program to fabricate or procure
components, if necessary. The NRC notes that it was not the intent of
the modification in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) in the proposed rule to
prevent licensees from using a commercial grade dedication program to
fabricate or procure components that are no longer available through an
Appendix B supplier. Another commenter stated the proposed modification
in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is unnecessary because the revision to
IWA-4226.1 in the 2003 Addenda is not associated with the fabrication
or procurement of components. This same commenter stated that a
component manufactured in a commercial shop that does not have a
quality assurance program would not be permitted in an application
within the jurisdiction of Section XI unless that practice was
permitted by the original Construction Code. In this case, a licensee
may purchase replacement material, parts, or components from a
commercial vendor and dedicate them for use in a nuclear power plant in
accordance with its quality assurance program. The NRC agrees with the
second commenter. The proposed modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is unnecessary because the revision to IWA-4226.1
(2003 Addenda) does not change component procurement or fabrication
requirements. Furthermore, the existing modification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii), Reconciliation of Quality Requirements, requires
that replacement parts be purchased, to the extent necessary, in
accordance with the licensee's quality assurance program. In
consideration of public comments, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xxviii) is not
adopted in this final rule.
2.3 ASME OM Code
The proposed rule would have revised Sec. 50.55a(b)(3) to
incorporate by reference the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda
of the ASME OM Code. Accordingly, the existing modifications for motor-
operated valves, snubbers, and manual valves in Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(ii),
Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(v), and Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(vi), respectively, would
continue to apply when using the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of
the ASME OM Code. The modifications in Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(ii), Sec.
50.55a(b)(3)(v), and Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(vi) continue to apply to the
2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of ASME OM Code because the earlier
Code provisions on which these regulations are based were not revised
in the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code to address
the underlying issues which led to the NRC to impose the modifications.
There were no public comments
[[Page 58814]]
received on Sec. 50.55a(b)(3), Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(ii), Sec.
50.55a(b)(3)(v), and Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(vi) and, therefore, these
provisions are adopted without change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(i)--Quality Assurance
The proposed rule would have revised the existing quality assurance
requirements in Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(i) to state that ISTA-1500 is
applicable when using the 1998 Edition and later editions and addenda
of the ASME OM Code. Subsections of the ASME OM Code were renumbered in
the 1998 Edition; therefore, Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(i) is revised to
account for the renumbering. This revision does not change requirements
in a substantive manner. There were no public comments received on
Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(i) and, therefore, this provision is adopted without
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iii)--Code Case OMN-1
The proposed rule would have revised Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) to
eliminate the authorization to use Code Case OMN-1. The existing
regulation in Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) authorizes the use of Code Case
OMN-1. Code Case OMN-1 is now approved in Regulatory Guide 1.192,
``Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code.''
Regulatory Guide 1.192 (Revision 0) was incorporated by reference into
Sec. 50.55a in a final rule dated July 8, 2003 (68 FR 40469). Thus, it
is no longer necessary to authorize the use of Code Case OMN-1 in Sec.
50.55a(b)(3)(iii) because this code case is now included in Regulatory
Guide 1.192. There were no public comments received on Sec.
50.55a(b)(3)(iii) and, therefore, this provision is adopted without
change in this final rule.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iv)--Check Valve Monitoring Program
The proposed rule would have revised the existing modification for
the check valve monitoring program in Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(iv) to
continue prohibiting use of the 1995 Edition through 2002 Addenda of
the ASME OM Code. The modification in (b)(3)(iv) does not apply to the
2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code because the earlier Code provisions on
which this regulation was based were revised in the 2003 Addenda of the
ASME OM Code to address the underlying issues which led to the NRC to
impose the modification. The check valve monitoring program
requirements in Appendix II of the 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code are
equivalent to the check valve monitoring program requirements in Sec.
50.55a(b)(3)(iv). There were no public comments received on (b)(3)(iv)
and, therefore, this provision is adopted without change in this final
rule.
3. Section-by-Section Analysis for 50.55a
Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph requires new applicants for a
nuclear power plant who submit an application for a construction permit
under 10 CFR Part 50 after the effective date of this rule use the 2001
Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III, Division 1 of the
ASME BPV Code for the design and construction of the reactor coolant
pressure boundary and Quality Group B and C components. The statement
of considerations for the proposed rule (69 FR 886) indicated that the
proposed rule would require, inter alia, applicants for design
certifications under 10 CFR Part 52 to use the 2001 Edition and the
2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
However, the language of the proposed rule did not provide for such
applicability, and upon further consideration, the NRC believes that
additional issues relating to the application of ASME Code to design
certifications and other regulatory processes in Part 52 need to be
considered. Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to extend by
rulemaking these ASME BPV Code provisions to design certifications, and
no rule change is necessary to accomplish this. This paragraph also
requires that existing modifications and limitations for weld leg
dimensions, seismic design, and independence of inspection in
Sec. Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(ii), 50.55a(b)(1)(iii), and 50.55a(b)(1)(v),
respectively, apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section
III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(1)(ii). This paragraph reconciles the change in
footnote numbers in Figures NC-3673.2(b)-1 and ND-3673.2(b)-1 in
Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code that were renumbered.
There are no substantive changes in this paragraph.
Paragraph (b)(1)(vi). This paragraph approves the use of Subsection
NH, ``Class 1 Components in Elevated Temperature Service,'' 1995
Addenda through 2003 Addenda, for only the design and construction of
Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves where service
conditions do not cause the component to reach temperatures exceeding
900 [deg]F. Licensees may not employ the special design methodologies
for high temperatures described in Subsection NH for the design and
construction of other Class 1 reactor coolant pressure boundary
component applications absent specific approval by the NRC.
Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph requires licensees of nuclear
power plants to use the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code when updating their
inservice inspection programs in their subsequent 120-month interval
under Sec. 50.55a(g)(4)(ii). Existing modifications and limitations
for quality assurance, Class 1 piping, underwater welding,
certification of nondestructive examination personnel, substitution of
alternative method, and Table IWB-2500-1 examination requirements in
Sec. Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(x), 50.55a(b)(2)(xi), 50.55a(b)(2)(xii),
50.55a(b)(2)(xviii), 50.55a(b)(2)(xix), and 50.55a(b)(2)(xxi),
respectively, apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section
XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code. This paragraph also adds Footnote
10 which states that enhanced reactor pressure vessel head inspections
have been imposed by order at pressurized water reactors, and that the
NRC will determine the need for supplemental inspection requirements to
be imposed through rulemaking.
Paragraph (b)(2)(viii). This paragraph requires that the existing
modification for examination of concrete containments in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(viii) apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code, and that a new
modification, Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(G), apply to the 2001 Edition
through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(viii)(G). This new paragraph requires that
corrosion protection medium be restored in accordance with the quality
assurance program requirements specified in IWA-1400 following IWL-4000
repair and replacement activities conducted on concrete containment
post-tensioning systems when using the 2001 Edition through 2003
Addenda Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ix). This paragraph requires that the existing
modification for examination of metal containments and the liners of
concrete containments in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) apply to the 2001
Edition through 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV
Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xiii). This paragraph no longer includes the
authorization to use Code Case N-513. Authorization to use Code Case N-
513 is now provided in Regulatory Guide 1.147, which has been
incorporated by reference into Sec. 50.55a.
[[Page 58815]]
Paragraph (b)(2)(xiv). The paragraph requires that the existing
modification for Appendix VIII personnel qualification in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) apply to the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of
Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code. The paragraph also
corrects an oversight by clarifying that the annual practice
requirements in VII-4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI, Division 1 of
the ASME BPV Code may be used.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xv). This paragraph requires the existing
modification for Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification
requirements in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) apply to the 2001 Edition of
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(C)(1). This paragraph specifies that the flaw
depth sizing provisions in Subparagraph 3.2(c) of Supplement 4 to
Appendix VIII of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code are not
applicable when Appendix VIII is implemented in accordance with the
provisions in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xv).
Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(J). This paragraph no longer includes the
authorization to use Code Case N-552. Authorization to use Code Case N-
552 is now provided in Regulatory Guide 1.147, which has been
incorporated by reference into Sec. 50.55a. Paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(J) is
reserved for future use.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xvii). This paragraph limits the existing
modification for reconciliation of quality requirements in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xvii) to apply only to the 1995 Addenda through 1998
Edition of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xx). This paragraph limits the existing
modification for system leakage tests in Sec. 50.55a(b)(2)(xx) to
apply only to the 1997 Addenda through 2002 Addenda of Section XI,
Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xxii). This new paragraph prohibits the use of the
provision in IWA-2220, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code, that allows the use of an
ultrasonic examination method to conduct a surface examination.
Licensees must conduct an IWA-2220 surface examination using magnetic
particle, liquid penetrant, or eddy current method.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xxiii). This new paragraph prohibits the use of
the provisions for eliminating mechanical processing of thermally cut
surfaces in IWA-4461.4.2 of the 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda of
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xxiv). This new paragraph prohibits the use of
Appendix VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII and Article I-3000
of the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV
Code. Licensees are required to implement Appendix VIII and its
supplements in accordance with the alternative provided in paragraph
(b)(2)(xv). Licensees are also required to use the coverage
requirements in paragraph (b)(2)(xv).
Paragraph (b)(2)(xxv). This new paragraph prohibits the use of IWA-
4340, 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI that
allows the mitigation of defects by modification.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xxvi). This new paragraph requires that the Class
1, 2, and 3 mechanical joint pressure and test provisions in IWA-
4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of Section XI of the ASME Code be used when
repair and replacement activities are conducted in accordance with the
2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section XI of the ASME
BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xxvii). This new paragraph requires that the
insulation be removed from 17-4 PH or 410 stainless steel studs or
bolts aged at a temperature below 1100 [deg]F or having a Rockwell
Method C hardness value above 30, and from A-286 stainless steel studs
or bolts preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square inch or higher when
performing visual examinations in accordance with IWA-5242 of the 2003
Addenda of Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code.
Paragraph (b)(3). This paragraph requires licensees of nuclear
power plants to use the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of
the ASME OM Code when updating their inservice test programs in their
subsequent 120-month inspection intervals under Sec. 50.55a(f)(4)(ii).
This paragraph also requires the existing modifications and limitations
for quality assurance, motor-operated valve testing, snubbers, and
manual valves in Sec. Sec. 50.55a(b)(3)(i), 50.55a(b)(3)(ii),
50.55a(b)(3)(v), and 50.55a(b)(3)(vi), respectively, apply to the 2001
Edition through 2003 Addenda of the ASME OM Code.
Paragraph (b)(3)(i). This paragraph reconciles the different
subsection and paragraph numbers of the ASME OM Code that were
renumbered in the 1998 Edition and subsequent editions and addenda.
There are no substantive changes in this paragraph.
Paragraph (b)(3)(iii). This paragraph no longer includes the
authorization to use Code Case OMN-1. Authorization to use Code Case
OMN-1 is now provided in Regulatory Guide 1.192 which has been
incorporated by reference into Sec. 50.55a. Paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is
reserved for future use.
Paragraph (b)(3)(iv). This paragraph limits the existing
modification for the check valve monitoring program in Sec.
50.55a(b)(3)(iv) to the 1995 Edition through 2002 Addenda of the ASME
OM Code.
4. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report
In July 2001, the NRC issued, ``Generic Aging Lessons Learned
(GALL) Report,'' NUREG-1801, Volumes 1 and 2, for use by applicants in
preparing their license renewal applications. The GALL report evaluates
existing generic programs, documents the bases for determining when
generic existing programs are adequate without change, and documents
when generic existing programs should be augmented for license renewal.
Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code is one of the generic
existing programs in the GALL report that is evaluated as an aging
management program (AMP) for license renewal. Subsections IWB, IWC,
IWD, IWF, IWE, and IWL of the 1995 Edition up to and including the 1996
Addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code for inservice inspection
were evaluated in the GALL report, and the conclusions in the GALL
report are valid for these edition and addenda.
In the GALL report Sections XI.M1, ``ASME Section XI Inservice
Inspection, Subsections IWB, IWC, and IWD,'' XI.S1, ``ASME Section XI,
Subsection IWE,'' XI.S2, ``ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL,'' and
XI.S3, ``ASME Section XI, Subsection IWF,'' describe the evaluation and
technical bases for determining the adequacy of Subsections IWB, IWC,
IWD, IWE, IWL, and IWF, respectively. In addition, many other AMPs in
the GALL report rely in part, but to a lesser degree, on the
requirements in the ASME Code, Section XI (i.e., XI.M3, XI.M4, XI.M5,
XI.M6, XI.M7, XI.M8, XI.M9, XI.M11, XI.M12, XI.M13, XI.M14, XI.M15,
XI.M16, XI.M18. XI.M24, XI.M25, and XI.M32).
The NRC has completed an evaluation of Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD,
IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and
the 2002 and 2003 Addenda) as part of the Sec. 50.55a amendment
process to determine if the conclusions of the GALL report are also
applicable for AMPs that rely upon the ASME Code editions and addenda
which are incorporated by reference into Sec. 50.55a by the final
rule. The NRC finds that the 2001 Edition and 2002 and 2003 Addenda of
Sections III and XI of the ASME BPV Code are acceptable and the
conclusions of the GALL report remain valid. Accordingly, an applicant
may
[[Page 58816]]
use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the
ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda) as
acceptable alternatives to the requirements of the 1995 Edition up to
and including the 1996 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI referenced
in the GALL AMPs without the need to submit these alternatives for NRC
review in its plant-specific license renewal application. Similarly, a
licensee approved for license renewal that relied on the GALL AMPs may
use Subsections IWB, IWC, IWD, IWE, IWF, and IWL of Section XI of the
ASME BPV Code (2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda) as
acceptable alternatives to the AMPs described in the GALL report.
However, a licensee must assess and follow applicable NRC requirements
with regard to changes to its licensing basis.
The GALL report identified areas of the 1995 Edition with the 1996
Addenda of Section XI of the ASME Code that require augmentation for
license renewal. A license renewal applicant may either augment their
AMPs in these areas as described in the GALL report or propose
alternatives for NRC review in its plant-specific license renewal
application. The GALL report's conclusions with respect to augmentation
in connection with a license renewal application also apply when
implementing the 2001 Edition and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section
XI of the ASME Code.
5. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods as
indicated.
Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located
at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Rulemaking Web site (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web
site is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. These documents may be
viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site.
NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR). The NRC's public
electronic reading room is located at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
NRC Staff Contact. Single copies of the Federal Register Notice,
Regulatory Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Resolution of Public
Comments can be obtained from Stephen Tingen, Division of Engineering,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Alternatively, you may contact
Mr. Tingen at (301) 415-1280, or via e-mail at: [email protected].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web PERR NRC staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order EA-03-009.............................. X X ML 030380470.................... X
Revised Order EA-03-009...................... X X ML 040220181.................... X
SECY-03-0078................................. X X ML 030700408.................... X
Federal Register Notice...................... X X ML 041200758.................... X
Regulatory Analysis.......................... X X ML 041200761.................... X
Environmental Assessment..................... X X ML 041200768.................... X
Regulatory Guide 1.147, ``Inservice X X ML 040230509.
Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME
Section XI, Division 1,'' Revision 13.
Regulatory Guide 1.192, ``Operation and X X ML 030730430.
Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM
Code,'' Revision 0.
NUREG-1801, ``Generic Aging Lessons Learned X X Volume 1--ML 012060392, Volume
(GALL) Report''. 2--ML 012060514.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 104-113, requires that if agencies establish technical standards,
the agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard
is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Pub.
L. 104-113 requires Federal agencies to use industry consensus
standards to the extent practical, however, it does not require Federal
agencies to endorse a standard in its entirety. The law does not
prohibit an agency from generally adopting a voluntary consensus
standard while taking exception to specific portions of the standard if
those provisions are deemed to be ``inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.'' Furthermore, taking specific exceptions
furthers the Congressional intent of Federal reliance on voluntary
consensus standards because it allows the adoption of substantial
portions of consensus standards without the need to reject the
standards in their entirety because of limited provisions which are not
acceptable to the agency.
The NRC is amending its regulations to incorporate by reference a
more recent edition and addenda of Sections III and XI of the ASME BPV
Code and ASME OM Code for construction, inservice inspection, and
inservice testing of nuclear power plant components. ASME BPV and OM
Codes are national consensus standards developed by participants with
broad and varied interests in which all interested parties (including
the NRC and licensees of nuclear power plants) participate. In a staff
requirements memorandum dated September 10, 1999, the Commission
indicated its intent that a rulemaking identify all portions of an
adopted voluntary consensus standard which are not adopted and to
provide a justification for not adopting such portions. The portions of
the ASME BPV Code and OM Code which the NRC does not adopt, or
partially adopts, are identified in Section 2 of this final rule and
the regulatory analysis. The justification for not adopting portions of
the ASME BPV Code, as set forth in these statements of consideration
and regulatory analysis for this rule satisfy the requirements of
Section 12(d)(3) of Pub. L. 104-113, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-119 and the Commission's direction in the staff
requirements memorandum dated September 10, 1999.
7. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined, under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not be a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,
and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
This rulemaking will not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents; no changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be
[[Page 58817]]
released off-site; there is no increase in occupational exposure; and,
there is no significant increase in public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological impacts associated
with the proposed action. The rulemaking does not involve non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, no significant non-radiological impacts are associated with
the action.
The determination of this environmental assessment is that there
will be no significant off-site impact to the public from this action.
The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment on this final rule.
The environmental assessment is available as indicated in Section 5,
Availability of Documents, under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION heading.
The NRC requested the views of the States on the environmental
assessment for the rule and did not receive any comments from the
States.
8. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule decreases the burden on licensees for recordkeeping
requirements related to examinations, tests, and repair and replacement
activities. The industry annual public burden reduction for this
information collection is estimated at 713 hours. Because the burden
reduction for this information collection is insignificant, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required. Existing
requirements were approved by the OMB, approval number 3150-0011.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information collection or an information
collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
9. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule. The
analysis is available for review in the NRC's Public Document Room,
located in One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in Section
5, Availability of Documents, under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
heading.
10. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation
of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not
fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set
forth in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13
CFR Part 121.
11. Backfit Analysis
The NRC's Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, states that the Commission
shall require the backfitting of a facility only when it finds the
action to be justified under specific standards stated in the rule.
Section 50.109(a)(1) defines backfitting as the modification of or
addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility;
or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the
procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a
facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in
the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position
interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from
a previously applicable staff position after issuance of the
construction permit or the operating license or the design approval.
Section 50.55a requires nuclear power plant licensees to construct
ASME BPV Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components in accordance with the rules
provided in Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code; inspect Class
1, 2, 3, Class MC, and Class CC components in accordance with the rules
provided in Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code; and test Class
1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves in accordance with the rules provided in
the ASME OM Code. This rule incorporates by reference the 2001 Edition
and the 2002 and 2003 Addenda of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME
BPV Code; Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code; and the ASME OM
Code.
Incorporation by reference of more recent editions and addenda of
Section III, Division 1 of the ASME BPV Code does not affect a plant
that has received a construction permit or an operating license or a
design that has been approved because the edition and addenda to be
used in constructing a plant are, by rule, determined on the basis of
the date of the construction permit and are not changed thereafter
except voluntarily by the licensee. Thus, incorporation by reference of
a more recent edition and addenda of Section III, Division 1 does not
constitute a ``backfitting'' as defined in Sec. 50.109(a)(1).
Incorporation by reference of more recent editions and addenda of
Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code
affect the inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST)
programs of operating reactors. However, the Backfit Rule generally
does not apply to incorporation by reference of later editions and
addenda of the ASME BPV Code (Section XI) and OM Code. The NRC's
longstanding policy has been to incorporate later versions of the ASME
Codes into its regulations. This is codified in Sec. 50.55a which
requires licensees to revise their ISI and IST programs every 120
months to the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV
Code and the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference into Sec. 50.55a
that is in effect 12 months prior to the start of a new 120-month ISI
and IST interval. Thus, when the NRC endorses a later version of the
Code, it is implementing this longstanding policy and requirement.
Other circumstances where the NRC does not apply the Backfit Rule
to the endorsement of a later Code are as follows:
(1) When the NRC takes exception to a later ASME BPV Code or OM
Code provision but merely retains the current existing requirement,
prohibits the use of the later Code provision, limits the use of the
later Code provision, or supplements the provisions in a later Code,
the Backfit Rule does not apply because the NRC is not imposing new
requirements. However, the NRC explains any such exceptions to the Code
in the Statement of Considerations and regulatory analysis for the
rule.
(2) When an NRC exception relaxes an existing ASME BPV Code or OM
Code provision but does not prohibit a licensee from using the existing
Code provision, the Backfit Rule does not apply because the NRC is not
imposing new requirements.
(3) Modifications and limitations imposed during previous routine
updates of Sec. 50.55a have established a precedent for determining
which modifications or limitations are backfits or require a backfit
analysis (final rules dated August 6, 1992 (57 FR 34666), August 8,
1996 (61 FR 41303), September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), and September 26,
2002 (67 FR 60520)). The application of the backfit requirements to
modifications and limitations in the current rule are consistent with
the application of backfit requirements to modifications and
limitations in previous rules.
There are some circumstances in which the endorsement of a later
ASME BPV Code or OM Code introduces a
[[Page 58818]]
backfit. In these cases, the NRC would perform a backfit analysis or
documented evaluation in accordance with Sec. 50.109. These include
the following:
(1) When the NRC endorses a later provision of the ASME BPV Code or
OM Code that takes a substantially different direction from the
existing requirements, the action is treated as a backfit. An example
was the NRC's initial endorsement of Subsections IWE and IWL of Section
XI which imposed containment inspection requirements on operating
reactors for the first time. The final rule dated August 8, 1996 (61 FR
41303), incorporated by reference in Sec. 50.55a the 1992 Edition with
the 1992 Addenda of IWE and IWL of Section XI to require that
containments be routinely inspected to detect defects that could
compromise a containment's structural integrity. This action expanded
the scope of Sec. 50.55a to include components that were not
considered by the existing regulations to be within the scope of ISI.
Since those requirements involved a substantially different direction,
they were treated as backfits, and justified in accordance with the
standards of 10 CFR 50.109.
(2) When the NRC requires implementation of later ASME BPV Code or
OM Code provision on an expedited basis, the action is treated as a
backfit. This applies when implementation is required sooner than it
would be required if the NRC simply endorsed the Code without any
expedited language. An example was the rule dated September 22, 1999
(64 FR 51370), which incorporated by reference the 1989 Addenda through
the 1996 Addenda of Section III and Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and
the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The final
rule expedited the implementation of the 1995 Edition with the 1996
Addenda of Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code for
qualification of personnel and procedures for performing ultrasonic
examinations. The expedited implementation of Appendix VIII was
considered a backfit because licensees were required to implement the
new requirements in Appendix VIII prior to the next 120-month ISI
program inspection interval update. Another example was the final rule
dated August 6, 1992 (57 FR 34666), which incorporated by reference in
Sec. 50.55a the 1986 Addenda through the 1989 Edition of Section III
and Section XI of the ASME BPV Code. The final rule added a requirement
to expedite the implementation of the revised reactor vessel shell weld
examinations in the 1989 Edition of Section XI. Imposing these
examinations was considered a backfit because licensees were required
to implement the examinations prior to the next 120-month ISI program
inspection interval update.
(3) When the NRC takes an exception to a ASME BPV Code or OM Code
provision and imposes a requirement that is substantially different
from the existing requirement as well as substantially different than
the later Code. An example was the adoption of dissimilar metal piping
weld UT examination coverage requirements in the final rule dated
September 26, 2002 (67 FR 60529), that incorporated by reference in
Sec. 50.55a the 1997 though 2000 Addenda of Section XI. Dissimilar
metal piping weld examination coverage requirements, although contained
in the 1989 Edition and earlier editions and addenda of Section XI, are
not addressed in the 1989 Addenda and later editions and addenda of
Section XI. Therefore, the addition of dissimilar metal piping weld
examination coverage requirements to the regulation was necessary.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vi)--Subsection NH
The modification, Sec. 50.55a(b)(1)(b)(vi), adds a new limitation
on the use of Subsection NH of the 1995 through 2003 Addenda of Section
III of the ASME BPV Code for the design and construction of Class 1
reactor coolant pressure boundary components. Subsection NH was added
to Section III of the ASME BPV Code in the 1995 Addenda. The NRC has
determined that this subsection was adopted in a final rule dated
September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51370), without performing an adequate
technical review.
As discussed earlier, the NRC has determined that Subsection NH has
been used to design and construct Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer
heater sleeves that reach temperatures of up to 900 [deg]F, and that
the use of Subsection NH for this application is acceptable. However,
the NRC has not performed a full technical review of Subsection NH for
other Class 1 components in future advanced reactor designs such as
liquid metal and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designs where
service conditions could reach 1500 [deg]F. Section 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) in
this final rule limits the application of Subsection NH to only
pressurizer heater sleeves constructed from Type 316 stainless steel
material where service conditions do not cause the component to reach
temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F. The Backfit Rule does not apply to
this limitation because, with the exception of Type 316 stainless steel
pressurizer heater sleeves, licensees have not applied the provisions
in Subsection NH to other Class 1 reactor coolant pressure boundary
components. The Backfit Rule does not apply to rules that revise
requirements that existing licensees have not applied or for future
combined license applicants and design certification applicants even
though such a rule may impact an applicant or licensee who was
considering applying the provisions of Subsection NH to Class 1 reactor
coolant pressure boundary components. For these reasons, the NRC
concludes that limiting the application of Subsection NH to only Type
316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves where service conditions
do not cause the component to reach temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F
does not constitute a backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
12. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a
major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.
13. Miscellaneous Public Comments on Proposed Rule
Class MC Supports
Several commenters stated that the ISI requirements for Class MC
supports are not specifically addressed in Sec. 50.55a(g). The
commenters requested that NRC revise Sec. 50.55a(g)(4) to clarify that
Class MC supports must be included in ISI programs. The NRC disagrees
with the commenters. The existing regulation in Sec. 50.55a(g) states
that Class MC components and their ``integral attachments'' must meet
the ISI requirements set forth in Section XI. The use of ``integral
attachment'' in the regulation is consistent with the terminology used
in Subsection IWF of Section XI (see Figure IWF-1300-1). The provisions
for the ISI of Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Component supports are included in
the scope of Subsection IWF. The use of the term ``integral
attachment'' is used in Table IWF-1300-1 and includes welded supports
to MC components.
NRC Participation on ASME Code Committees
Several commenters stated that the number of modifications and
limitations imposed by the NRC on later editions and addenda of the
ASME Codes have
[[Page 58819]]
significantly increased and that the ASME and NRC committee members
should strive to minimize the number of modifications and limitations.
The NRC agrees that the number of modifications and limitations should
be kept to a minimum. OMB Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in
the Development and Use of voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities,'' requires agency representatives on
committees to ascertain the views of the agency to the extent possible
and express views consistent with established agency views. It should
be noted, however, that unanticipated events occasionally change the
NRC position on an issue during final consideration.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting
criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the
following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
0
1. The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83
Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232,
2233, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242,
as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112
Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note).
Section 50.7 also issued under Public Law 95-601, sec. 10, 92
Stat. 2951(42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs.
101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec.
102, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections
50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat.
939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and
50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102,
Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and
50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415,
96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec.
122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued
under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix
F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
0
2. Section 50.55a is amended by:
0
(a) Removing and Reserving paragraphs (b)(2)(xv)(J) and (b)(3)(iii).
0
(b) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1), paragraph
(b)(1)(ii), the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), the introductory
text of paragraphs (b)(2)(viii) and (b)(2)(ix), paragraph (b)(2)(xiii),
paragraph (b)(2)(xiv), and the introductory text of
paragraph(b)(2)(xv), paragraph (b)(2)(xv)(C)(1), paragraph
(b)(2)(xvii), paragraph (b)(2)(xx), the introductory text of paragraph
(b)(3), paragraph (b)(3)(i), and the introductory text of paragraph
(b)(3)(iv).
0
(c) Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(vi), (b)(2)(viii)(G), and (b)(2)(xxii)
through (b)(2)(xxvii), and Footnote 10.
Sec. 50.55a Codes and standards.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) As used in this section, references to Section III of the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section III, and include the
1963 Edition through 1973 Winter Addenda, and the 1974 Edition
(Division 1) through the 2003 Addenda (Division 1), subject to the
following limitations and modifications:
* * * * *
(ii) Weld leg dimensions. When applying the 1989 Addenda through
the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, licensees may not apply paragraph NB-
3683.4(c)(1), the footnote to circumferential fillet welded and socket
welded joints in Figure NC-3673.2(b)-1 that permit a socket weld leg
dimension to be less than 1.09 of the nominal wall thickness of the
pipe or the footnote to circumferential fillet welded and socket welded
joints in figure ND-3673.2(b)-1 that permit a socket weld leg dimension
to be less than 1.09 of the nominal wall thickness of the pipe.
* * * * *
(vi) Subsection NH. The provisions in Subsection NH, ``Class 1
Components in Elevated Temperature Service,'' 1995 Addenda through the
latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, may only be used for the design and
construction of Type 316 stainless steel pressurizer heater sleeves
where service conditions do not cause the component to reach
temperatures exceeding 900 [deg]F.
(2) As used in this section, references to Section XI of the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code refer to Section XI, and include the
1970 Edition through the 1976 Winter Addenda, and the 1977 Edition
(Division 1) through the 2003 Addenda (Division 1), subject to the
following limitations and modifications:\10\
* * * * *
(viii) Examination of concrete containments. Licensees applying
Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, shall apply
paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A) through (b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section.
Licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda,
shall apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A), (b)(2)(viii)(D)(3), and
(b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Licensees applying Subsection IWL,
1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda shall apply paragraphs
(b)(2)(viii)(E) and (b)(2)(viii)(F) of this section. Licensees applying
Subsection IWL, 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda
incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall
apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) through (b)(2)(viii)(G) of this
section.
* * * * *
(G) Corrosion protection material must be restored following
concrete containment post-tensioning system repair and replacement
activities in accordance with the quality assurance program
requirements specified in IWA-1400.
(ix) Examination of metal containments and the liners of concrete
containments. Licensees applying Subsection IWE, 1992 Edition with the
1992 Addenda, or the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, shall satisfy
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) through (b)(2)(ix)(E) of
this section. Licensees applying Subsection IWE, 1998 Edition through
the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, shall satisfy the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(2)(ix)(A), (b)(2)(ix)(B), and (b)(2)(ix)(F) through (b)(2)(ix)(I)
of this section.
* * * * *
(xiii) Mechanical clamping devices. Licensees may use the
provisions of Code Case N-523-1, ``Mechanical Clamping Devices for
Class 2 and 3 Piping.'' Licensee choosing to apply Code Case N-523-1
shall apply all of its provisions.
(xiv) Appendix VIII personnel qualification. All personnel
qualified for performing ultrasonic examinations in accordance with
Appendix VIII shall receive 8 hours of annual hands-on training on
specimens that contain cracks. Licensees applying the 1999 Addenda
through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section may use the annual practice
requirements in VII-
[[Page 58820]]
4240 of Appendix VII of Section XI in place of the 8 hours of annual
hands-on training provided that the supplemental practice is performed
on material or welds that contain cracks, or by analyzing prerecorded
data from material or welds that contain cracks. In either case,
training must be completed no earlier than 6 months prior to performing
ultrasonic examinations at a licensee's facility.
(xv) Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification requirements. The
following provisions may be used to modify implementation of Appendix
VIII of Section XI, 1995 Edition through the 2001 Edition. Licensees
choosing to apply these provisions shall apply all of the following
provisions under this paragraph except for those in Sec.
50.55a(b)(2)(xv)(F) which are optional.
* * * * *
(C) * * *
(1) A depth sizing requirement of 0.15 inch RMS must be used in
lieu of the requirements in Subparagraphs 3.2(a) and 3.2(c), and a
length sizing requirement of 0.75 inch RMS must be used in lieu of the
requirement in Subparagraph 3.2(b).
* * * * *
(J) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(xvii) Reconciliation of Quality Requirements. When purchasing
replacement items, in addition to the reconciliation provisions of IWA-
4200, 1995 Addenda through 1998 Edition, the replacement items must be
purchased, to the extent necessary, in accordance with the licensee's
quality assurance program description required by 10 CFR
50.34(b)(6)(ii).
* * * * *
(xx) System leakage tests. When performing system leakage tests in
accordance IWA-5213(a), 1997 through 2002 Addenda, a 10-minute hold
time after attaining test pressure is required for Class 2 and Class 3
components that are not in use during normal operating conditions, and
no hold time is required for the remaining Class 2 and Class 3
components provided that the system has been in operation for at least
4 hours for insulated components or 10 minutes for uninsulated
components.
(xxii) Surface Examination. The use of the provision in IWA-2220,
``Surface Examination,'' of Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest
edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, that allow use of an ultrasonic examination method is
prohibited.
(xxiii) Evaluation of Thermally Cut Surfaces. The use of the
provisions for eliminating mechanical processing of thermally cut
surfaces in IWA-4461.4.2 of Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest
edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section are prohibited.
(xxiv) Incorporation of the Performance Demonstration Initiative
and Addition of Ultrasonic Examination Criteria. The use of Appendix
VIII and the supplements to Appendix VIII and Article I-3000 of Section
XI of the ASME BPV Code, 2002 Addenda through the latest edition and
addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
is prohibited.
(xxv) Mitigation of Defects by Modification. The use of the
provisions in IWA-4340, ``Mitigation of Defects by Modification,''
Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda
incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are
prohibited.
(xxvi) Pressure Testing Class 1, 2, and 3 Mechanical Joints. The
repair and replacement activity provisions in IWA-4540(c) of the 1998
Edition of Section XI for pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical
joints must be applied when using the 2001 Edition through the latest
edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.
(xxvii) Removal of Insulation. When performing visual examinations
in accordance with IWA-5242 of Section XI, 2003 Addenda through the
latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph
(b)(2) of the section, insulation must be removed from 17-4 PH or 410
stainless steel studs or bolts aged at a temperature below 1100 [deg]F
or having a Rockwell Method C hardness value above 30, and from A-286
stainless steel studs or bolts preloaded to 100,000 pounds per square
inch or higher.
(3) As used in this section, references to the OM Code refer to the
ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, and
include the 1995 Edition through the 2003 Addenda subject to the
following limitations and modifications:
(i) Quality Assurance. When applying editions and addenda of the OM
Code, the requirements of NQA-1, ``Quality Assurance Requirements for
Nuclear Facilities,'' 1979 Addenda, are acceptable as permitted by ISTA
1.4 of the 1995 Edition through 1997 Addenda or ISTA-1500 of the 1998
Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by
reference in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, provided the licensee
uses its 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, quality assurance program in
conjunction with the OM Code requirements. Commitments contained in the
licensee's quality assurance program description that are more
stringent than those contained in NQA-1 govern OM Code activities. If
NQA-1 and the OM Code do not address the commitments contained in the
licensee's Appendix B quality assurance program description, the
commitments must be applied to OM Code activities.
* * * * *
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) Appendix II. Licensees applying Appendix II, ``Check Valve
Condition Monitoring Program,'' of the OM Code, 1995 Edition with the
1996 and 1997 Addenda, shall satisfy the requirements of (b)(3)(iv)(A),
(b)(3)(iv)(B), and (b)(3)(iv)(C) of this section. Licensees applying
Appendix II, 1998 Edition through the 2002 Addenda, shall satisfy the
requirements of (b)(3)(iv)(A), (b)(3)(iv)(B), and (b)(3)(iv)(D) of this
section.
* * * * *
Footnotes to Sec. 50.55a:
* * * * *
\10\ Supplemental inservice inspection requirements for reactor
vessel pressure heads have been imposed by Order EA-03-09 issued to
licensees of pressurized water reactors. The NRC expects to develop
revised supplemental inspection requirements, based in part upon a
review of the initial implementation of the order, and will
determine the need for incorporating the revised inspection
requirements into 10 CFR 50.55a by rulemaking.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of September, 2004.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 04-21561 Filed 9-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P